Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 31, 2019 20:22:15 GMT -6
Moderate Radicals Arise!Our parties have a rich diversity of opinion concerning the proper role of the King in Talossan politics and governance. The King’s recent actions run afoul of all of them. Some of us believe Talossa ought not have a King at all. Others believe that the King ought to be purely ceremonial, or serve only “to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.” Because any political action taken by the King is not countenanced by these ideologies, we will here judge the King only by the loosest standard; that he exercise his power responsibly by making his intentions and communications clear, and that he foster Talossan culture and society in equal measure with the political power he wields. The Monarchists among us believe this is how any King of Talossa could protect what he sees as the long-term interests of Talossa while still commanding the respect of his subjects. All Talossans should expect our current King to adhere to these precepts, and we are sorry to say our expectations are not being met. Fiôvâ-Florencia Merger Lawsuit The King is recognized by many as a foremost expert in Talossan law. Therefore, if there were an issue with the manner in which Florencia handled their vote on the merger and the subsequent (non)-referral of the matter to the Constable, we might reasonably have expected the King to notice. He visited Wittenberg multiple times after the Nimlet had voted and before the Chancery set the date of the referendum. Given his close deconstruction of many other bills, we believe it probable that the King noticed the potential problem but refrained from pointing it out until a later time when doing so would be more disruptive. Normally we would not be given to such theories. As has been pointed out, several other bodies, including the Ziu, the Nimlet, Fiôvân officials, and the Chancery also did not discover the procedural error. Therefore, even though the King is a legal expert and a citizen of Florencia, he could be readily forgiven for such an oversight. However, it is difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt, as he has now himself admitted what many have long suspected: It is also noteworthy that the King’s principal procedural objection is that he himself was not consulted on the matter, in the person of his Constable. To begin, it does appear that the Constable was involved in the process and withdrew her objections, and did so after the Governor voted in favor of the bill; we suppose it could be argued either way whether this “counts” as the Governor presenting the bill to the Constable. But more importantly, the King already was given the prerogative to veto the merger if he so desired when the Ziu passed it on the May 2019 Clark. To summarize, the King is attempting to halt the referendum on the basis of a procedural error he probably knew about beforehand and that, if corrected, would only give him a power he already had (and therefore would demonstrably not change the outcome). To deny the people of these two provinces a vote on the matter for this reason, especially when it has been endorsed by almost all prominent citizens of both provinces, might be legal, but not at all what we should expect from our King.
Vetoes Beginning with the Proclamation Crisis four years ago, the King has occasionally found it appropriate to, without warning, descend from his throne just long enough to veto bills he does not like. According to him: However, MZs are not psychic, and are often caught by surprise by his vetoes. The 22nd-31st of every month has become a somewhat tense period as MZs wait to see whether the King will appear at all, and if he does, whether their bill will find itself on the wrong side of his veto stamp. The prime reason the Clark results thread is so long every time the King hands down a veto is that this is usually the first time the MZs involved have been able to discuss the bill with the King. Even if the King does not see an easy way to address his concerns with a bill, he should at least provide the courtesy of explaining what they are. He severely underestimates the creativity of the Ziu if he believes he is the only one capable of finding solutions. If no agreement can be found, it is still irresponsible of him to use his veto power to catch MZs unawares. The King’s participation in the Hopper more generally is also usually lacking. We grant the King a place in our political process because we trust he will use his expertise and unique position to suggest improvements to a variety of bills. On most, he is silent. Communication with the Government Many of us have, at one point or another, been Prime Minister, and we know that it was (and is) often difficult to reach the King when we had important business. During the 52nd Cosa, a simple query concerning webhosting expenses took months to resolve. Missing an email on occasion would be understood, but the King also routinely fails to respond to important Private Messages and threads where his attention is needed when he visits Wittenberg (which itself does not occur as often as could reasonably be expected of the King of Talossa). The clearest example; the numerous “acting Ministers” in the past few terms that have been left in limbo for weeks or months because the King never gave them their official appointment. The current Seneschál has attempted to act respectfully and in good faith, giving His Majesty sufficient notice by email of issues with which she believes he may take issue. The King claims to have not received several of these emails, which may well be true. But he has also often not responded to text messages sent to his cellphone number, which he assured this Government was the best way to reach him in an emergency. It is difficult not to reach the conclusion that the King has deliberately chosen, on occasions, not to respond to communications from the Government, because he prefers to “maneuver” or to “parachute in” (as some have called it) to thwart the Government’s agenda rather than attempt to reach a compromise beforehand. Like the monthly anticipation of a surprise veto, this causes stress and tension for the elected Government, and makes Talossa significantly less fun. We do not believe that the King has acted in good faith toward the Government he appointed. Culture The King must realize the tremendous soft power he wields as the most prestigious citizen of Talossa. There are so many ways the King could increase the prestige and interest of many aspects of the Kingdom, and insofar as people are attracted to Talossa because of the novelty of the Monarchic aesthetic, he is not following through on his awesome duties. We trust that the King believes he acts for the good of Talossa, but the ways he does so are narrow-minded and do not take advantage of the unique position he has. It has been a very long time since he has engaged significantly in a non-political initiative, which is a sorry state of affairs for someone who ought to be leading some of these initiatives. He would do well to remember that he is the Head of State, not the Head of Government. If the King devoted more time to his cultural duties, it would likely foster goodwill between him and the citizens, making them more apt to engage with him and grant him the presumption of good faith when he makes an unpopular political decision. In the absence of such non-political activity, his turning up almost exclusively to make unpopular political decisions at the very least gives the impression he acts in his own interest rather than that of the entire Kingdom. Talossa cannot reach its full potential when it vests its most important cultural aspects in someone who never puts them to use. King John does not have the right to be King simply because he is currently King or because he made, at one time, significant contributions. We are grateful to the King for his work in the past, but Talossa deserves someone who will work for us in the present and in the future. Either the King needs to deliver on the promise of the Monarchy, or we need a new King.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Aug 1, 2019 10:41:22 GMT -6
100% agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Colonel Mximo Carbonèl on Aug 2, 2019 0:21:11 GMT -6
HEY HEY
Why do we need a king?
Mximo
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Aug 2, 2019 11:46:55 GMT -6
The fact, though, is that Florencia had NOT "handled their vote on the merger" yet, when "the Chancery set the date of the referendum". It's not that the measure passed, and afterwards I found fault with procedure. It's that without following the procedure, the measure had never passed.
People seem to be arguing that the deadline for voting was two weeks after the proposal was made. But clearly, the Governor thought the voting was still open after four weeks, when he voted for the proposal. *I* thought the voting was still open. I imagine other people did, too. But suddenly the Government and Chancery spring in and declare that the voting had been done seven weeks earlier, that the measure had passed on a vote of 1 to 0, and that the referendum was going forward and was to begin in a mere 10 days. So I acted promptly to force the Government to require Florencia's approval of the merger, as the original Fantastic Fusion bill had required. *I* was obeying the law here; the Government was not; and the Cort agreed.
This is just as if someone had Clarked a Bill, voted in favour of it, and before the end of the Clark the Government declared it had passed and no more voting or signing or vetoing was to be permitted. My guess is that you wouldn't like that; I wouldn't either. And if I couldn't figure out any other way to get the Government to back down on their illegal assertion, yeah, I'd file suit — as I did in this case.
— John R
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Aug 2, 2019 12:14:24 GMT -6
And I think you overstate the shock and awe of a royal veto. Only one of my vetos during this Cosa hasn't been immediately overridden, and that one was on a Bill that was clearly inOrganic on the face of it. A veto, under these conditions, is simply a requirement that the Cosa at least note my objection, and pass the same Bill again, unamended, next month. Is this really a matter of "stress and tension"?
— John R
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Aug 2, 2019 12:17:39 GMT -6
Which things said, I take many of your criticisms quite seriously. I definitely agree with you that I haven't always done all I should and could for the country, and that I should improve. I apologize, as I often have, and will try to do better.
— John R
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 2, 2019 16:49:06 GMT -6
The fact, though, is that Florencia had NOT "handled their vote on the merger" yet, when "the Chancery set the date of the referendum". It's not that the measure passed, and afterwards I found fault with procedure. It's that without following the procedure, the measure had never passed.... People seem to be arguing that the deadline for voting was two weeks after the proposal was made. But clearly, the Governor thought the voting was still open after four weeks, when he voted for the proposal. 1) The deadline was intended to be set at two weeks. I know this, because Spencer Kerfoot asked for my help drafting the resolution. I read the Florencian Constitution and what it required, and I clearly put the two-week deadline in (I can find those original messages if you like), and the confusion only arose because cxhn. Kerfoot decided of his own accord to "spice up the language" (and I failed to double-check it because I didn't think it would be litigated). You can argue that Spencer should have understood matters of law more clearly and not meddled with the "coding" - I think he would admit that himself now. But we have evidence of the intention behind the original bill. 2) The attempt to interpret what the Governor "clearly" thought seems to me to be bad-faith and partisan, and could be quickly dispelled by simply asking Governor Colonel Mximo Carbonèl . There are two other ways of interpreting this that seem just as valid: - he was casting a "pro-forma" vote of approval, knowing full well it had already passed. - this was his way of "signing and delivering" the successful resolution to the Constable. We again have the problem that the King doesn't just talk to his political adversaries, preferring unilateral action based on politically tendentious misreadings of the situation. Many crises and dramas could be averted if the King communicated in a timely fashion, and not just with my Government. One member of my party actually suggested that this "bug" is a "feature", that the King actually prefers the "parachute" method because it creates drama and is much more "fun" than communication before the fact. If so, that's reprehensible. YOU NEVER EVEN ASKED ME. If you had dropped me an email saying "but surely the Florencia vote hasn't closed yet?" I would have told you the above. And as we've noticed, you never even asked the Governor. We're back to "lack of communication". And I think you overstate the shock and awe of a royal veto.... Is this really a matter of "stress and tension"? Yes. Yes it is. The Government is required to make plans for Talossa's future. Uncertainty is the enemy of planning. The King deliberately interjects uncertainty into the process by not giving advance warning if he intends to give vetoes.
If you don't believe me that, on the 22nd of each month, I am on tenterhooks for 10 days until I know what you're going to pull out an objection about, and it's detrimental to my mental health/enjoyment of Talossa, then I don't know what to tell you. When I woke up this morning to a Facebook message from a colleague asking me what I thought of the King's latest posts, I was in a state of high anxiety for the time it took me to wake up properly, breakfast, turn on my computer and read Witt. I don't need that in my life. Also, in some cases a bill is (in the Cosa's opinion) urgent, and the King's ability to delay it for a month is serious business. These are things that I could have told you in private. In fact, I've tried to tell you. And you don't reply to those emails. IMHO, I am doing all I can to prevent surprises, to find out what you think about everything. By not responding, you deliberately create uncertainty where it could be avoided. I can only think you do this on purpose. Which things said, I take many of your criticisms quite seriously. I definitely agree with you that I haven't always done all I should and could for the country, and that I should improve. I apologize, as I often have, and will try to do better. Well, good. Here are two confidence building measures you can carry out right now: - to inform the Nimlet whether you intend to veto the Merger Resolution, should its current approval of it not be somehow reversed within the next 10 days. - responding to the last email I sent you, proposing a "mutual no surprises" policy.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Aug 2, 2019 17:25:16 GMT -6
And I think you overstate the shock and awe of a royal veto. Only one of my vetos during this Cosa hasn't been immediately overridden, and that one was on a Bill that was clearly inOrganic on the face of it. A veto, under these conditions, is simply a requirement that the Cosa at least note my objection, and pass the same Bill again, unamended, next month. Is this really a matter of "stress and tension"? — John R To use the PM's verbiage: Yes. Yes it is. I am fortunate to be more free of anxiety than she, but I have come to regard the times from the 22nd of each month through the end of each month as unecessarily difficult. Throughout my time in the Kingdom doing Talossa with you, I have not always felt this way, knowing you would throw down the veto-hammer only in situations of gravest import to the country: mass violations of Covenants, etc. The Ziu voted through four years ago an Organic amendment that would have made it impossible for a Monarch to appoint a Cunstaval to a province where said appointee was not a resident. Using a literal-textual loophole since closed, you vetoed that amendment. You looooove the posts of Cunstaval, and that amendment went contrary to the way you want to do Talossa. Ergo, you vetoed it. On the surface, yes, it was a benign demonstration of a serious legal flaw, but at the same time, it thwarted the will of the people in referendum who specifically voted to curtail your powers as Monarch. You could have brought this flaw to people's attention. You could have with all your vetoes brought your objections to the attention of the Ziu while these things were still in the Hopper without surprising us with a veto. No, you cannot catch everything, but you are not catching enough objectionable things. Curtailing the powers of the Monarch is a political issue. Four years ago, you became a political monarch. You have remained as such. And you failed over a period of months to call out Florencia's government over its procedural issues. You could have stopped this thing in its tracks and given a chance for the relevant individuals to depart from their wicked ways, and you didn't. I say this again, John, no-one is a bigger rules-maven in Talossan than you. I would strongly venture to say you are the biggest rules-nerd in Talossan since JJ and Ben, both. If you are going to be Monarch of Talossa, we expect you to do your job. We expect you to advise. We expect you to warn. We expect you to speak out. The Hopper awaits your constructive criticism.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 5, 2019 18:44:14 GMT -6
Which things said, I take many of your criticisms quite seriously. I definitely agree with you that I haven't always done all I should and could for the country, and that I should improve. I apologize, as I often have, and will try to do better. — John R I appreciate this but can't help but feel that it rings a bit hollow. I have been here four years and over that time, your activity level has been consistently quite low. At some point, Talossa cannot thrive on continued apologies. I am really trying to not make this come off as mean, or unappreciative of everything you accomplished before I arrived. However, as the statement says, Talossa needs an active King at all times. If you are finding yourself without the time, or without the drive to serve as you once did, then retire on the back of your achievements and pass the baton to someone who has the same fire for Talossa that you do. Otherwise, we have high expectations.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 6, 2019 15:02:26 GMT -6
King John hasn't seen fit to reply to my suggestions for confidence-building measures, in particular about whether he will allow the Nimlet (and thus, the Florencian people) the final say on the provincial merger. A confident King or conservative politician would, I think, let the referendum happen, trusting that they could rustle up a majority for NO in the province which contains the entire Royal family and elected its current Senator. Remember guys, that's all it takes. The two provinces aren't added up. If Florencia's people in their majority say NO, it doesn't happen. John mentioned something to me in email about how he thinks the Merger constitution may be inorganic. If he really thought so, he would explain how right now so that the Nimlet (and the Fiovan GA) could fix the problems.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Aug 9, 2019 10:15:26 GMT -6
I presume the Seneschal is accurate in saying that she and S:reu Kerfoot *meant* to put a two-week limit on the voting. But they didn't, did they? How was I or the Constable or anyone else to know that anyone thought that a voting deadline had been set, and that the deadline was two weeks? And after S:reu Kerfoot voted (so the count was 1 to 0), nobody said "Hey, the voting is over now" or anything like it. I didn't dream, until I got an email from the Seneschal on July 9, that she or anyone else considered the issue a done deal.
On July 10 I emailed the Seneschal that I disagreed with her conclusion that Florencia had already passed this legislation, since Florencian legislation requires that a Bill be submitted to the Constable for approval or veto. That hadn't happened yet. Now she is arguing that Governor Carbonel's posting saying "Azul, I vote per on this resolution. Mximo Carbonèl" constitutes the Governor's signing the Bill and submitting it to the Constable. That's a pretty far-fetched argument, just on the face of it, and one the Cort rejected.
In general, I wait for things to happen before deciding just how I'll deal with them, and decline to answer questions of the form "If X happens, will you do Y?". If I were to say ahead of time what I'll do in some circumstance, and then later saw good reason to change my mind, I wouldn't be free to act, at least not with a whole lot of (rather justified) criticism.
— John R
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 9, 2019 11:00:24 GMT -6
The Cort also ruled that the deadline S:reu Kerfoot set for the vote, albeit confusingly worded, was valid.
Keeping everyone in the dark about what you think about bills is much worse than occasionally having to change your mind. Everyone changes their mind sometimes, we would probably understand (and I imagine the criticism you suspect you would get for doing so is a lot less than the criticism you currently receive for commenting exceedingly rarely).
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 9, 2019 18:54:48 GMT -6
The Cort also ruled that the deadline S:reu Kerfoot set for the vote, albeit confusingly worded, was valid. We have already established that the King is not the "stickler for the rules" of legend and rumour. Rather, he has his own opinions on what the laws mean, and he sticks to his ideas/reasoning even if the highest Cort in the land rules otherwise - in the above case, as in the case of the outcome of the Proclamation Crisis. I've been saying for years that this is a very very dangerous attitude for a monarchical head of state to have.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 9, 2019 18:57:32 GMT -6
In general, I wait for things to happen before deciding just how I'll deal with them, and decline to answer questions of the form "If X happens, will you do Y?". If I were to say ahead of time what I'll do in some circumstance, and then later saw good reason to change my mind, I wouldn't be free to act, at least not with a whole lot of (rather justified) criticism. And clearly you believe your "freedom to act" is of a higher value than the smooth functioning of the Government, and the mental health of the people whose plans for Talossa absolutely depend on your yea or nay. This is not only a dangerous, but may I say a self-centred attitude for a Monarch to take. Everything could be simpler, and there would be less conflict in Talossa, if you would give "if... then..." indications to your subjects. The thing which makes many Talossans upset, and to consider "warning shots", is not the current panoply of Royal powers and prerogatives - but how you choose to use them. By refusing to consider the way in which you use them, you are bringing us near to a serious confrontation.
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Aug 11, 2019 14:34:35 GMT -6
In general, I wait for things to happen before deciding just how I'll deal with them, and decline to answer questions of the form "If X happens, will you do Y?". If I were to say ahead of time what I'll do in some circumstance, and then later saw good reason to change my mind, I wouldn't be free to act, at least not with a whole lot of (rather justified) criticism. And clearly you believe your "freedom to act" is of a higher value than the smooth functioning of the Government, and the mental health of the people whose plans for Talossa absolutely depend on your yea or nay. This is not only a dangerous, but may I say a self-centred attitude for a Monarch to take. Everything could be simpler, and there would be less conflict in Talossa, if you would give "if... then..." indications to your subjects. The thing which makes many Talossans upset, and to consider "warning shots", is not the current panoply of Royal powers and prerogatives - but how you choose to use them. By refusing to consider the way in which you use them, you are bringing us near to a serious confrontation. No more torpedo-vetos out of the blue, John.
|
|